On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:16:51 -0500, rickman wrote:

On 2/23/2017 11:24 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:49:23 -0500, the renowned rickman
wrote:

On 2/23/2017 5:50 AM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On 23 Feb 2017 05:49:24 GMT, the renowned Jasen Betts
wrote:


You don't have to agree to pay shipping on "faulty product" or "not as
described". If the vendor can't make an acceptable offer in the time
allotte aliexpress will take interest in the deal.

I still lost $120 US or so, even after they took interest.

Their argument was that it was a relatively large amount of money so I
should lose half. If it was $5 or $10 they probably would have made
the dishonest vendor pay 100%. So, caveat emptor.

That's so BS, but it may be a cultural thing. A friend was in a taxi in
Vietnam and a cyclist was hit. The two drivers started haggling and
bystanders joined in to mediate. In the end it was decided that the
cyclist should get $50. They said my friend should pay.

Yes, typical Asian logic and I'm all too familiar with it- if the
foreign devil wasn't there the taxi wouldn't have been carrying him,
and thus the cyclist wouldn't have been hit.

You can see a smidgeon of that in some of the anti-immigrant rhetoric
on this side of the pond.

From what my friend says, there is no small element of "the money comes
from the one most able to pay". We get that here sometimes.

It's called "joint and several liability".